"Potential bidders for Boston Globe await documents" by Beth Healy | Globe Staff, March 23, 2013
Potential bidders for The Boston Globe were expecting documents from investment bankers regarding the sale of the company to become available as soon as Monday, according to several people briefed on the timing.
The New York Times Co. last month announced it had hired Evercore Partners in New York to solicit bids for the New England Media Group, which includes the Globe, the Worcester Telegram & Gazette, and the newspapers’ online properties.
It’s too early to know who will emerge as serious bidders, but talks have been underway over the past few weeks among a number of interested people, according to those briefed on the discussions.
Among the potentially interested parties are....
--more--"
"Times Co. plans to sell the Globe after 20 years" by Beth Healy and Casey Ross | Globe Staff, February 21, 2013
The New York Times Co. on Wednesday said it plans to sell the New England Media Group, including The Boston Globe and its related online properties, and has hired an investment banker to find a buyer.
The move comes more than three years after the Times Co. tried unsuccessfully to sell the Globe amid the recession and mounting losses at New England’s largest newspaper. Now, after a significant turnaround at the Globe and its online sites, BostonGlobe.com and Boston.com, the Times Co. is seeking to shed its last major outside holding.
“Our plan to sell the New England Media Group demonstrates our commitment to concentrate our strategic focus and investment on The New York Times brand and its journalism,” said Mark Thompson, chief executive of the Times Co., in a statement. The Times Co. has owned the Globe for two decades.
Thompson said the Times Co. was “proud of our association with the Globe” and Worcester Telegram & Gazette, but “given the differences between these businesses and The New York Times, we believe that a sale is in the best long-term interests of these properties and the employees who work for them as well as in the best interests of our shareholders.”
Shares of the Times Co. fell slightly on the news, which broke just before the market’s close....
The Times Co. last tried to sell the Globe in 2009, after first threatening to shut the newspaper down because it was losing money. Following wage cuts and other cost-saving concessions from Globe employees, the Times Co. decided not to sell at that time....
Related: Globe Employees Applaud a Rapist
I don't feel sorry for them one bit in light of the insulting and elitist crap they shovel day-after-day.
News of the intended sale is sure to spark a new round of speculation and uncertainty at the newspaper, which has withstood — better than many other metropolitan dailies — the challenges of more readers shifting to the Internet and a protracted drop in advertising revenues.
“The Globe, like a Chicago Tribune or LA Times, is potentially attractive to a well-to-do individual or group of folks who want to do something good for the city and aren’t necessarily interested in turning a profit right away,” said Rick Edmonds, a media business analyst with the Poynter Institute, a journalism organization based in Florida. “It remains an excellent and ambitious paper on the news side.”
If that's what you call agenda-pushing propaganda.
As for turning a profit, I'd pay attention to who the buyers are.
Edmonds said few media companies are in expansion mode, and even a smaller subset would be interested in acquiring a metro newspaper. Larger chains such as Gannett Co. are reducing their newspaper holdings, he noted....
It's called CUTTING YOUR LOSSES, and it is what the Times is doing to the Globe!
In 2009, several local business people initially emerged as potential bidders, including retired advertising mogul Jack Connors; Bain Capital partner Steve Pagliuca; and a group led by Steve Taylor, a member of the family that formerly owned the Globe. The two final bids submitted came from Taylor’s group and from Platinum Equity, a Beverly Hills private equity firm that bought the San Diego Union-Tribune....
Yeah, guys like that are never looking to turn a profit.
Related: Putting the Boston Globe in the Vault
The Massachusetts Model: Tax-Exempt Memory Hole
Throwing the Booker at Obama Over Bain
Some newspaper industry executives said Rupert Murdoch — head of News Corp., which owns Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, and the New York Post — should not be ruled out as a serious suitor.
Yep, Fox is going to save the Boston Globe -- as if it matters.
Related: Cameron Caught Up in Media Conspiracy
That scandal already forgotten, 'eh?
Murdoch also owns the Ottaway group of community papers that include the Cape Cod Times and the Standard-Times of New Bedford.
Related: Cape Cod Fraud
Yup, it's a Murdoch paper.
Murdoch used to own the Boston Herald. Nathaniel Brown, a spokesman for News Corp., declined to comment.
Related: Boston Globe Delivery Room
Pretty much down to one pos anyway.
The Times Co. bought the Globe in 1993 for $1.1 billion, in what was then a record transaction in the news business. Within little more than a decade, however, the Internet began to erode newspaper revenues and subscriptions as more readers read news for free online, dramatically altering the landscape of the business.
Where you also happen to find the TRUTH!
Today, the Globe’s parent is likely to make a fraction of what it once paid to acquire the then-family-owned Globe....
Oh, boo-hoo for the f***ing NYT.
Since the aborted 2009 sale attempt, the Times Co. has sold virtually all of its non-New York assets, including newspapers in Florida and California, broadcast outlets, and the website About.com. It also sold a lucrative stake in the Boston Red Sox, tripling a $75 million investment over 10 years....
See: New York Times Takes Off Red Sox
Closing the Book on the Boston Globe
That's what the Times is doing, and maybe me too, soon.
The Globe and its online businesses, BostonGlobe.com and Boston.com, showed an operating profit in 2012, according to people briefed on the financial results, although after various accounting charges and other items there was a net loss....
Oh, they made money even thought they lost money?
The Globe and its businesses also were profitable in 2011....
Yeah, uh-huh.
--more--"
Readers, the level of self-delusion is so great you really have to wonder about the objective sanity of the newspaper. When they lie to themselves what makes you think they wouldn't lie to you? I mean, they are believing their own lies!
"Potential Globe suitors may include local investors" by Beth Healy and Casey Ross | Globe Staff, February 22, 2013
As news of The New York Times Co.’s plans to sell The Boston Globe filtered through media and investor circles Thursday, speculation mounted about would-be buyers for New England’s largest newspaper.
Most people were still digesting the news, and the process of soliciting bids was in its earliest stages, according to people briefed on the effort. So the handicapping went first to known media buyers who have been in the market lately, including some who had expressed interest in the Globe.
For instance....
Newspaper executives and analysts following the sale of the Globe noted that the media environment has improved since 2009, when the economy was blanketed in recession and many news outlets, including the Globe, were losing money. The Globe made an operating profit in both 2011 and 2012....
Yeah, sure they did. Don't want to look like a loser to potential buyers.
Related: The Boston Globe's Circulation CQD
Globe on the Rebound
Yeah, I guess it helps the numbers when you COUNT THINGS TWICE!!!
The appetite for newspaper acquisitions has changed markedly since the Times Co. pulled the Globe off the market in 2009. More investors are now expressing interest in acquiring newspapers, and most that go up for sale are finding buyers, although with varying results.
One investor with a change of heart has been billionaire Warren Buffett. In 2009, Buffett declared he would not purchase newspapers at any price. But he went on a buying spree last year, acquiring 63 papers from Media General for $142 million and a stake in a smaller media company called Lee Enterprises. Earlier this month, Buffett added the News & Record in Greensboro, N.C., to his portfolio.
The Globe is a much larger business than those recently acquired by Buffett, who has focused on smaller papers in markets with less competition.
Buffett was among the Globe’s largest investors when it went public as Affiliated Publications Inc. in the 1970s. And he has long been an investor in the Washington Post.
All of a sudden the monied mouthpieces make perfect sense to me.
A spokesman for Buffett did not return a call seeking comment on the Globe sale....
Rupert Murdoch, the chief executive of News Corp., which owns the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post and many other media outlets, has expressed interest in the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune, as their owner, Tribune Co., emerged from bankruptcy in December. Analysts said Murdoch is likely to be more interested in those markets than in Boston.
They didn't mention his affiliation with Fox this time!
A spokesman for Murdoch declined to comment.
Lou Ureneck, a journalism professor at Boston University’s College of Communication, said the Globe is likely to be more attractive because of the cost cuts made under the Times Co.
The challenge, he said, will be to continue to increase the number of readers who pay for online subscriptions. The Globe had 28,000 paid online-only subscribers on BostonGlobe.com at the end of 2012, about a year after its launch....
Related: Would You Pay Twice For a Turd?
Because you are a fool like me.
Increasing the number of online subscribers, Ureneck said, will be key in the years ahead. “I think there is a successful and profitable future for the Globe, but it’s going to be a slow and painstaking process,” he said.
--more--"
And what is important to that intrepid investigative reporter at the Globe? Truth, justice? Nope.
"Changes are in the air for The Boston Globe" by Kevin Cullen | Globe Columnist, February 22, 2013
Many moons ago, when my hair was still black and Ronald Reagan was still president, Rupert Murdoch saved the Boston Herald by buying it.
A group of young turks was hired to reverse the tabloid’s sinking fortunes, and soon the newsroom was swimming in talent and enthusiasm. It launched the Boston careers of some of the more enduring figures in the local newspaper game: Frank Phillips, Brian Mooney, Shelley Murphy, Andy Gully, Matt Carroll, Joe Sciacca, Gayle Fee.
By the time I arrived, the newsroom was buzzing with energy and idealism. The only downside was watching the holdovers from the old regime depart, almost like exiles. One of them was Harold Banks, a real old-school newsman and something of a legend.
When he returned to the newsroom for the last few times, to finalize his retirement, Banks took pity on me, a clueless kid trying to find his way around the city. He offered a few tips, gave me a few names and numbers.
“Well, kid,” he said one evening, as he stood to leave for the last time, “good luck.”
I stood and almost bowed in reverence. I told him he was a role model and a gentleman.
“You didn’t have to help a nobody like me,” I said, shaking his hand. “Thank you, sir.”
Banks shrugged.
“Why wouldn’t I help a nice kid named Cohen,” he said.
I sheepishly corrected him, telling him my name is Cullen.
Harold Banks stared blankly for a moment. Then he threw his jacket over one of his shoulders, put a comforting hand on one of mine, leaned toward my ear and said in a stage whisper, “Sorry, kid. Wrong tribe.”
And then he went home.
Newspapers are living, breathing organisms. Like all living things, they change with time. They change owners. They change personnel. For 20 years, this newspaper has been owned by The New York Times. That is about to change.
It’s just one more of many changes in this newspaper, in this business, in this city. It was always something of an odd fit. New York and Boston are different animals. They speak different languages.
But being owned by those who represent the gold standard in journalism does have its advantages. There’s no question the Times Co. forced cuts, but the cuts were nowhere as deep as at other papers in other parts of the country. The Globe retains a newsroom with considerable resources and talent.
A few years ago, when the Times threatened to shut us down unless we gave them back a ton of money, what bothered us as much as the threat was that no one in Manhattan had the decency to take the train up to tell us in person.
And they were even applauded by you guys for it.
But, in the end, this is a business. It’s a noble business. When done right, it can do more than entertain and inform; it can change things for the better. But it’s still a business.
That about $ays it all, folks. It's an agenda-pu$hing bu$ine$$.
The change that is coming is about business, not journalism. As for the delightfully delusional people who see a change of ownership as a death sentence, the natural consequence of the Globe being part of the vast left-wing conspiracy, please, sit back, crack another cold one and adjust your tinfoil hats.
Oh, an insult to the truth-telling blogs. He's confirmed their death certificate while trying to say they are still alive.
The fact is, the WAR IS OVER and WE WON! NO ONE BELIEVES in the shit-shoveling AmeriKan media anymore.
Ask Sal DiMasi, John Tierney, and Mike McLaughlin, just recent examples, if they think the Globe goes easy on Democrats.
Oh, self-delusion combined with arrogance. Bad combo. And think about it. Poor Sal is dying in prison, Tierney is back in Congress (boy, does that result ever stink of a rig), and McLaughlin is going to avoid jail time (see all the letters?).
The Globe isn’t going anywhere. It’s changing owners.
Which really means nothing is changing.
Who knows, maybe Sir Rupert will throw his hat in the ring. Stranger things have happened.
Years ago, when Murdoch considered buying Newsday, I asked my pal Breslin what he thought about working for the guy who owned the gleefully right-wing New York Post.
“Does he pay?” Jimmy Breslin said. “If he pays, he’s a good boss. If he doesn’t pay, he’s not a good boss.”
And that is the BOTTOM LINE as far as the "reporters" are concerned.
--more--"
Then I got to thinking, here is ONE UNION I really couldn't give a crap about:
"Globe staff briefed on plans to sell paper" by Beth Healy | Globe Staff, February 23, 2013
New York Times Co. vice chairman Michael Golden told Boston Globe employees Friday that the company has a duty to seek the highest bidder in a sale but aims to leave the newspaper in responsible hands.
“We have no intention to send the New England Media Group to the slaughterhouse,” he said in one of three town-hall style meetings with employees. Let's eat 'em! You know
Golden came to Boston to discuss the Times Co.’s plan to sell the Globe, the Worcester Telegram & Gazette, and their related websites. In the meetings, he made no promises about what kind of suitors the Times Co. would consider.
But employees pressed him on whether the Globe’s owner of 20 years has a duty to find a buyer who will be a good steward of New England’s largest newspaper.
Oh, worried about your job now. F*** you guys!
“We will take what we consider to be the best bid,’’ Golden said, describing a process that he estimated would take six to nine months. Price is important, he said, but leaving the Globe in capable hands will be a consideration.
“We’re interested in the long-term future of the New England Media Group,’’ Golden said....
Is that why they are selling?
Related: "From the moment the Times Co. purchased The Globe in 1993, it has treated New England's largest newspaper like a cheap whore"
That's not me, folks, it is from someone who worked at the Globe.
As employees wondered about their future without Times Co. ownership, Golden suggested it could be an opportunity for the Globe.
Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! Getting a taste of their own shovel of shit!!!!!!!!!!!
He said that as an independent business, the Globe will no longer have to send tens of millions of dollars per year to the Times Co. to help fund overall operations. “Your cash flow will suddenly take a meaningful step up,’’ he said.
Oh, you were SUBSIDIZING the NEW YORK TIMES, huh? Those job and benefit cuts and salary reductions look like an anal rape now -- especially when the Times MADE PROFIT IMMEDIATELY AFTERWARD!
Golden also confirmed that the Globe is “cash-flow positive,” meaning it makes an operating profit. In 2009, the Times Co. threatened to shut down the Globe because it was losing money.
Yup, uh-huh, right, whatever.
Fielding questions from employees concerned about their pensions, Golden assured them their retirement money was safe. He said the Globe pensions were 80 to 85 percent funded, and that the Times Co. sees funding the remainder “quite manageable.”
PFFFFFFFFFFFTTT!!!!
He confirmed reports by the Globe that the Times Co. will probably retain responsibility for the pension obligations rather than trying to transfer it to the Globe’s new owner. The Times Co. kept pension liabilities in other recent sales of media properties, he said. He indicated that the Globe pension plans, which the company froze in 2009, would not be an “impediment” to getting a deal done.
Golden said there are no plans to implement cost cuts or layoffs in advance of a sale.
But you NEVER KNOW! They only said they "have no plans."
Meanwhile, some potential buyers made their interest known Friday....
--more--"
How i$ the Time$ doing the$e day$ anyway?
"New York Times Co. profit jumps after asset sales" New York Times, February 08, 2013
The New York Times Co. reported a big jump in fourth-quarter profit Thursday, largely because of gains from asset sales....
And two weeks later.... ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
Total revenue rose 5.2 percent, to $575.8 million. Overall, the company’s advertising revenue declined 3.1 percent. Print advertising at its newspapers, which include The New York Times, The Boston Globe, and The International Herald Tribune, shrank by 5.6 percent and digital advertising revenue across the company rose by 5.1 percent. Circulation revenue grew 16.1 percent.
The company’s New England Media Group, which includes the Globe, Boston.com, and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette, had fourth-quarter revenue of $107.7 million, up 3.1 percent from a year before.
For the entire year, Times Co. net income was $133 million, or 87 cents a share, versus a loss of $39.7 million, or 26 cents, in the previous year.
Now they GAVE BACK some of those BENEFITS to employees, right?
The past year marked the first time that circulation revenue surpassed advertising revenue. Circulation revenue grew 10.4 percent to $952.9 million, mainly from the growth in digital subscriptions and the rise in print circulation prices. Advertising for the year declined 5.9 percent, to $898.1 million.
The number of paid subscribers to the website, e-reader, and other digital editions of the Times and International Herald Tribune reached about 640,000 at the end of the quarter, a 13 percent increase from 2012’s third quarter. Digital subscriptions to the Globe and BostonGlobe.com grew 8 percent, to about 28,000.
“The demonstrated willingness of users here and around the world to pay for the high-quality journalism for which The New York Times and the company’s other titles are renowned will be a key building block in the strategy for growth, which . . . I will have much more to say about later in the year,’’ said Mark Thompson, president and chief executive of the Times Co.
That's the same Mark Thompson who helped cover up the Savile sex scandal, folks.
The Times expects ad revenue to stay sluggish in the first quarter and total circulation revenue to grow by ‘‘midsingle digits.’’ It ‘‘expects to benefit from its digital subscription initiatives as well as from the print circulation price increase at The New York Times,” it said.
Sometimes expectations fall short.
--more--"
Related: The New York Times is the Exception to the Rule
New York Times renaming International Herald Tribune
A turd, by any other name, still smells like s*** -- which is exactly the smell that is emanating from the newspaper on my desk.
Also see:
Six Zionist Companies Own 96% of the World's Media
Declassified: Massive Israeli manipulation of US media exposed
Operation Mockingbird
Why Am I No Longer Reading the Newspaper?
In addition, other executives have been part of groups considering buying the Globe. They include....
Some newspaper industry executives said Rupert Murdoch — head of News Corp., which owns Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, and the New York Post — should not be ruled out as a serious suitor.
Yep, Fox is going to save the Boston Globe -- as if it matters.
Related: Cameron Caught Up in Media Conspiracy
That scandal already forgotten, 'eh?
Murdoch also owns the Ottaway group of community papers that include the Cape Cod Times and the Standard-Times of New Bedford.
Related: Cape Cod Fraud
Murdoch used to own the Boston Herald. Nathaniel Brown, a spokesman for News Corp., declined to comment.
Related: Boston Globe Delivery Room
Pretty much down to one pos anyway.
The Times Co. bought the Globe in 1993 for $1.1 billion, in what was then a record transaction in the news business. Within little more than a decade, however, the Internet began to erode newspaper revenues and subscriptions as more readers read news for free online, dramatically altering the landscape of the business.
Where you also happen to find the TRUTH!
Today, the Globe’s parent is likely to make a fraction of what it once paid to acquire the then-family-owned Globe....
Oh, boo-hoo for the f***ing NYT.
Since the aborted 2009 sale attempt, the Times Co. has sold virtually all of its non-New York assets, including newspapers in Florida and California, broadcast outlets, and the website About.com. It also sold a lucrative stake in the Boston Red Sox, tripling a $75 million investment over 10 years....
See: New York Times Takes Off Red Sox
Closing the Book on the Boston Globe
That's what the Times is doing, and maybe me too, soon.
The Globe and its online businesses, BostonGlobe.com and Boston.com, showed an operating profit in 2012, according to people briefed on the financial results, although after various accounting charges and other items there was a net loss....
Oh, they made money even thought they lost money?
The Globe and its businesses also were profitable in 2011....
Yeah, uh-huh.
--more--"
Readers, the level of self-delusion is so great you really have to wonder about the objective sanity of the newspaper. When they lie to themselves what makes you think they wouldn't lie to you? I mean, they are believing their own lies!
"Potential Globe suitors may include local investors" by Beth Healy and Casey Ross | Globe Staff, February 22, 2013
As news of The New York Times Co.’s plans to sell The Boston Globe filtered through media and investor circles Thursday, speculation mounted about would-be buyers for New England’s largest newspaper.
Most people were still digesting the news, and the process of soliciting bids was in its earliest stages, according to people briefed on the effort. So the handicapping went first to known media buyers who have been in the market lately, including some who had expressed interest in the Globe.
For instance....
Newspaper executives and analysts following the sale of the Globe noted that the media environment has improved since 2009, when the economy was blanketed in recession and many news outlets, including the Globe, were losing money. The Globe made an operating profit in both 2011 and 2012....
Yeah, sure they did. Don't want to look like a loser to potential buyers.
Related: The Boston Globe's Circulation CQD
Globe on the Rebound
Yeah, I guess it helps the numbers when you COUNT THINGS TWICE!!!
The appetite for newspaper acquisitions has changed markedly since the Times Co. pulled the Globe off the market in 2009. More investors are now expressing interest in acquiring newspapers, and most that go up for sale are finding buyers, although with varying results.
One investor with a change of heart has been billionaire Warren Buffett. In 2009, Buffett declared he would not purchase newspapers at any price. But he went on a buying spree last year, acquiring 63 papers from Media General for $142 million and a stake in a smaller media company called Lee Enterprises. Earlier this month, Buffett added the News & Record in Greensboro, N.C., to his portfolio.
The Globe is a much larger business than those recently acquired by Buffett, who has focused on smaller papers in markets with less competition.
Buffett was among the Globe’s largest investors when it went public as Affiliated Publications Inc. in the 1970s. And he has long been an investor in the Washington Post.
All of a sudden the monied mouthpieces make perfect sense to me.
A spokesman for Buffett did not return a call seeking comment on the Globe sale....
Rupert Murdoch, the chief executive of News Corp., which owns the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post and many other media outlets, has expressed interest in the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune, as their owner, Tribune Co., emerged from bankruptcy in December. Analysts said Murdoch is likely to be more interested in those markets than in Boston.
They didn't mention his affiliation with Fox this time!
A spokesman for Murdoch declined to comment.
Lou Ureneck, a journalism professor at Boston University’s College of Communication, said the Globe is likely to be more attractive because of the cost cuts made under the Times Co.
The challenge, he said, will be to continue to increase the number of readers who pay for online subscriptions. The Globe had 28,000 paid online-only subscribers on BostonGlobe.com at the end of 2012, about a year after its launch....
Related: Would You Pay Twice For a Turd?
Because you are a fool like me.
Increasing the number of online subscribers, Ureneck said, will be key in the years ahead. “I think there is a successful and profitable future for the Globe, but it’s going to be a slow and painstaking process,” he said.
--more--"
And what is important to that intrepid investigative reporter at the Globe? Truth, justice? Nope.
"Changes are in the air for The Boston Globe" by Kevin Cullen | Globe Columnist, February 22, 2013
Many moons ago, when my hair was still black and Ronald Reagan was still president, Rupert Murdoch saved the Boston Herald by buying it.
A group of young turks was hired to reverse the tabloid’s sinking fortunes, and soon the newsroom was swimming in talent and enthusiasm. It launched the Boston careers of some of the more enduring figures in the local newspaper game: Frank Phillips, Brian Mooney, Shelley Murphy, Andy Gully, Matt Carroll, Joe Sciacca, Gayle Fee.
By the time I arrived, the newsroom was buzzing with energy and idealism. The only downside was watching the holdovers from the old regime depart, almost like exiles. One of them was Harold Banks, a real old-school newsman and something of a legend.
When he returned to the newsroom for the last few times, to finalize his retirement, Banks took pity on me, a clueless kid trying to find his way around the city. He offered a few tips, gave me a few names and numbers.
“Well, kid,” he said one evening, as he stood to leave for the last time, “good luck.”
I stood and almost bowed in reverence. I told him he was a role model and a gentleman.
“You didn’t have to help a nobody like me,” I said, shaking his hand. “Thank you, sir.”
Banks shrugged.
“Why wouldn’t I help a nice kid named Cohen,” he said.
I sheepishly corrected him, telling him my name is Cullen.
Harold Banks stared blankly for a moment. Then he threw his jacket over one of his shoulders, put a comforting hand on one of mine, leaned toward my ear and said in a stage whisper, “Sorry, kid. Wrong tribe.”
And then he went home.
Newspapers are living, breathing organisms. Like all living things, they change with time. They change owners. They change personnel. For 20 years, this newspaper has been owned by The New York Times. That is about to change.
It’s just one more of many changes in this newspaper, in this business, in this city. It was always something of an odd fit. New York and Boston are different animals. They speak different languages.
But being owned by those who represent the gold standard in journalism does have its advantages. There’s no question the Times Co. forced cuts, but the cuts were nowhere as deep as at other papers in other parts of the country. The Globe retains a newsroom with considerable resources and talent.
A few years ago, when the Times threatened to shut us down unless we gave them back a ton of money, what bothered us as much as the threat was that no one in Manhattan had the decency to take the train up to tell us in person.
And they were even applauded by you guys for it.
But, in the end, this is a business. It’s a noble business. When done right, it can do more than entertain and inform; it can change things for the better. But it’s still a business.
That about $ays it all, folks. It's an agenda-pu$hing bu$ine$$.
The change that is coming is about business, not journalism. As for the delightfully delusional people who see a change of ownership as a death sentence, the natural consequence of the Globe being part of the vast left-wing conspiracy, please, sit back, crack another cold one and adjust your tinfoil hats.
Oh, an insult to the truth-telling blogs. He's confirmed their death certificate while trying to say they are still alive.
The fact is, the WAR IS OVER and WE WON! NO ONE BELIEVES in the shit-shoveling AmeriKan media anymore.
Ask Sal DiMasi, John Tierney, and Mike McLaughlin, just recent examples, if they think the Globe goes easy on Democrats.
Oh, self-delusion combined with arrogance. Bad combo. And think about it. Poor Sal is dying in prison, Tierney is back in Congress (boy, does that result ever stink of a rig), and McLaughlin is going to avoid jail time (see all the letters?).
The Globe isn’t going anywhere. It’s changing owners.
Which really means nothing is changing.
Who knows, maybe Sir Rupert will throw his hat in the ring. Stranger things have happened.
Years ago, when Murdoch considered buying Newsday, I asked my pal Breslin what he thought about working for the guy who owned the gleefully right-wing New York Post.
“Does he pay?” Jimmy Breslin said. “If he pays, he’s a good boss. If he doesn’t pay, he’s not a good boss.”
And that is the BOTTOM LINE as far as the "reporters" are concerned.
--more--"
Then I got to thinking, here is ONE UNION I really couldn't give a crap about:
"Globe staff briefed on plans to sell paper" by Beth Healy | Globe Staff, February 23, 2013
New York Times Co. vice chairman Michael Golden told Boston Globe employees Friday that the company has a duty to seek the highest bidder in a sale but aims to leave the newspaper in responsible hands.
“We have no intention to send the New England Media Group to the slaughterhouse,” he said in one of three town-hall style meetings with employees. Let's eat 'em! You know
Golden came to Boston to discuss the Times Co.’s plan to sell the Globe, the Worcester Telegram & Gazette, and their related websites. In the meetings, he made no promises about what kind of suitors the Times Co. would consider.
But employees pressed him on whether the Globe’s owner of 20 years has a duty to find a buyer who will be a good steward of New England’s largest newspaper.
Oh, worried about your job now. F*** you guys!
“We will take what we consider to be the best bid,’’ Golden said, describing a process that he estimated would take six to nine months. Price is important, he said, but leaving the Globe in capable hands will be a consideration.
“We’re interested in the long-term future of the New England Media Group,’’ Golden said....
Is that why they are selling?
Related: "From the moment the Times Co. purchased The Globe in 1993, it has treated New England's largest newspaper like a cheap whore"
That's not me, folks, it is from someone who worked at the Globe.
As employees wondered about their future without Times Co. ownership, Golden suggested it could be an opportunity for the Globe.
Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! Getting a taste of their own shovel of shit!!!!!!!!!!!
He said that as an independent business, the Globe will no longer have to send tens of millions of dollars per year to the Times Co. to help fund overall operations. “Your cash flow will suddenly take a meaningful step up,’’ he said.
Oh, you were SUBSIDIZING the NEW YORK TIMES, huh? Those job and benefit cuts and salary reductions look like an anal rape now -- especially when the Times MADE PROFIT IMMEDIATELY AFTERWARD!
Golden also confirmed that the Globe is “cash-flow positive,” meaning it makes an operating profit. In 2009, the Times Co. threatened to shut down the Globe because it was losing money.
Yup, uh-huh, right, whatever.
Fielding questions from employees concerned about their pensions, Golden assured them their retirement money was safe. He said the Globe pensions were 80 to 85 percent funded, and that the Times Co. sees funding the remainder “quite manageable.”
PFFFFFFFFFFFTTT!!!!
He confirmed reports by the Globe that the Times Co. will probably retain responsibility for the pension obligations rather than trying to transfer it to the Globe’s new owner. The Times Co. kept pension liabilities in other recent sales of media properties, he said. He indicated that the Globe pension plans, which the company froze in 2009, would not be an “impediment” to getting a deal done.
Golden said there are no plans to implement cost cuts or layoffs in advance of a sale.
But you NEVER KNOW! They only said they "have no plans."
Meanwhile, some potential buyers made their interest known Friday....
--more--"
How i$ the Time$ doing the$e day$ anyway?
"New York Times Co. profit jumps after asset sales" New York Times, February 08, 2013
The New York Times Co. reported a big jump in fourth-quarter profit Thursday, largely because of gains from asset sales....
And two weeks later.... ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
Total revenue rose 5.2 percent, to $575.8 million. Overall, the company’s advertising revenue declined 3.1 percent. Print advertising at its newspapers, which include The New York Times, The Boston Globe, and The International Herald Tribune, shrank by 5.6 percent and digital advertising revenue across the company rose by 5.1 percent. Circulation revenue grew 16.1 percent.
The company’s New England Media Group, which includes the Globe, Boston.com, and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette, had fourth-quarter revenue of $107.7 million, up 3.1 percent from a year before.
For the entire year, Times Co. net income was $133 million, or 87 cents a share, versus a loss of $39.7 million, or 26 cents, in the previous year.
Now they GAVE BACK some of those BENEFITS to employees, right?
The past year marked the first time that circulation revenue surpassed advertising revenue. Circulation revenue grew 10.4 percent to $952.9 million, mainly from the growth in digital subscriptions and the rise in print circulation prices. Advertising for the year declined 5.9 percent, to $898.1 million.
The number of paid subscribers to the website, e-reader, and other digital editions of the Times and International Herald Tribune reached about 640,000 at the end of the quarter, a 13 percent increase from 2012’s third quarter. Digital subscriptions to the Globe and BostonGlobe.com grew 8 percent, to about 28,000.
“The demonstrated willingness of users here and around the world to pay for the high-quality journalism for which The New York Times and the company’s other titles are renowned will be a key building block in the strategy for growth, which . . . I will have much more to say about later in the year,’’ said Mark Thompson, president and chief executive of the Times Co.
That's the same Mark Thompson who helped cover up the Savile sex scandal, folks.
The Times expects ad revenue to stay sluggish in the first quarter and total circulation revenue to grow by ‘‘midsingle digits.’’ It ‘‘expects to benefit from its digital subscription initiatives as well as from the print circulation price increase at The New York Times,” it said.
Sometimes expectations fall short.
--more--"
Related: The New York Times is the Exception to the Rule
New York Times renaming International Herald Tribune
A turd, by any other name, still smells like s*** -- which is exactly the smell that is emanating from the newspaper on my desk.
Also see:
Six Zionist Companies Own 96% of the World's Media
Declassified: Massive Israeli manipulation of US media exposed
Operation Mockingbird
Why Am I No Longer Reading the Newspaper?
Does it really matter who owns the Boston Globe?
